The term “re-socialisation” is a matter of debate in all Member States as well as in the international criminological discussion. It may be substituted by several similar terms like rehabilitation, reintegration, education or individual crime prevention while the choice of the respective expression depends on the emphasis of the national perspective and the preference of a certain author. Thus, we needed to clarify in which sense and with which connotation the term is used throughout the project, re-socialisation being one of the latter’s core terms.
In the law (e.g. in Section 2 Federal Prison Act of Germany), re-socialisation is oftentimes understood as individual crime prevention. It is thought to be a positive form of special prevention as opposed to negative special prevention, with the latter being regarded as selective incapacitation of individuals which are assumed to be dangerous. Re-socialisation according to German law, for instance, is defined as the process of learning to lead a life without crime and in social responsibility. In this perspective, reoffending is used as the most important – if not the only – variable in measuring the effectiveness of any kind of sanctions imposed with the purpose of crime prevention, such as imprisonment or alternatives to imprisonment. This perspective on re-socialisation108 is also connected to evaluation efforts which have been strengthened under the “what works” or “evidence-based policy” perspective and terminology during the last fifteen years, promoting experimental research. This narrow approach of the concept of re-socialisation or rehabilitation – the latter term is preferred in the Anglo-American discussions – has recently been criticised by a number of authors because it meant reducing the offender to a conglomeration of risk and need factors.109 According to the alternative “Good Lives Model”, developed by Tony Ward and his colleagues and already mentioned above, the (former) offender is perceived rather as a subject than an object of re-socialisation, supporting his or her own preferences and suggestions on what will help and work for him or her to lead a better life which – at least for the reason of the risk of imprisonment – will usually include a life without crime. It can be derived from this model that measures, whenever possible, should not be imposed against the
108 Becoming famous based on the concept of D.A. Andrews & J. Bonta, The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, Cincinnati, 5th edition 2010.
109 T. Ward & S. Maruna (2007), Rehabilitation. Beyond the Risk Paradigm, London and New York.
Re-socialisation and ambulant sanctions
54will of the offender but in line with his or her own needs and wishes. When applying this concept, the question whether a measure does work or not, with respect to preventing reoffending, becomes less important for justifying it with respect to the constitutional rights of the offender. An important implication for research on different types of sanctions is to focus on the perspective of the individual who is subjected to a sanction and how he or she perceives this sanction, not just on effects on his or her behaviour. Hence, research methods will rather be surveys and observational research instead of randomised trials.
When discussing re-socialisation with the special focus of enhancing the role of the civil society in the process of re-socialisation of offenders, it should also be clear that a mere concentration on the question of reoffending would be too narrow to be sufficient. Thus, bearing this objective in mind, a common definition of re-socialisation should take into account the role of civil society in the process of re-socialisation. With respect to this, two aspects are important: one is an understanding of re-socialisation including the “repair” of the de-socialising aspects of imprisonment or ambulant sanctions. The other is to perceive re-socialisation as a two-sided interactive effort between ex-offender and society which could also be described as reintegration.
Imprisonment is connected with several deprivations resulting from deprivation of liberty or adding to the deprivation of liberty. Once in prison, prisoners mostly lose their jobs, housing and family ties, as well as close relationships become fragile.
Because of the high costs of criminal proceedings, the obligation to make reparations to victims and low wages in prison, if the prisoner is employed there at all, financial problems and debts are growing. The danger of suicide is higher than outside prison and during the time of imprisonment the health situation of the majority of prisoners worsens. Due to this situation and to the stigma of having been imprisoned, it is difficult to resettle in society after release. From this perspective, re-socialisation has – in the first place – to be an attempt to attenuate the negative impact imprisonment has on the socialisation of the prisoner. This concept also found its way into law as, for instance, visible in Section 3 para. 2 of the Federal Prison Act of Germany, which states that the prison has to counteract harms caused by imprisonment as part of the re-socialisation effort. Damaging consequences of ambulant sanctions may be less known, but it clearly does not go without saying that there are none. This should be plausible when thinking of e.g. electronic monitoring affecting the individual under supervision as well as the family and others in close relation.
Understanding re-socialisation as a two-sided process bringing the civil society back in stresses the necessity of society to conceiving of the prisoner during imprisonment – and afterwards – as an individual on his or her way back into society. Without such a societal attitude, the concept of re-socialisation is impossible to be realised.
Within this meaning, as formulated, for instance, by Alessandro Baratta110 stressing the two-sided process, re-socialisation is called “reintegration”.
All these aspects are crucial to an understanding of re-socialisation as more than the mere absence of reoffending but rather as increasing the chances for the offender to lead a good live again, or even for the first time, with its meaning being defined by the individuals themselves. Such an interpretation also entails the active support of the offender in overcoming the negative impact of imprisonment by society, without one-sidedly expecting efforts from the prisoner, the released individual or the offender under supervision.
The aspect of social rehabilitation underpins all three mentioned Framework Decisions. They require the transfer to enhance the prospects of social rehabilitation.111 It is acknowledged that this will often be the case in connection with an explicit request of the accused or sentenced person.
According to the „waste management model“ as described by Simon and Lynch, the persistent rhetoric of rehabilitation may serve a public and political discourse that still holds up the idea of the reform of offenders. However, at least a dedication to the individuals’ capacity to change and desist from crime would be necessary for bringing forward a concurrent development as described in Simon’s enrichment model. But this is denied according to these authors, let alone societal and economical changes diminishing poverty. It is a matter of debate in how far these American models apply to the situation of Europe but clearly at least similar tendencies cannot be precluded to exist.
The European Probation Rules still mention the aim of rehabilitation despite their orientation towards risk and need. Since they are binding regulations, it should be out of question that they just pay lip service to rehabilitation as it was described for the United States by Lynch.
Rehabilitation in the European Probation Rules is described as “a broad concept which denotes a wide variety of interventions aimed at promoting desistance and at the restoration of an offender to the status of a law-abiding person.” This may cause the apprehension that rehabilitation is understood in the narrowest way as described above. But this may partly be attributed to the use of different terminology rather than content. In addition to “rehabilitation”, the European Probation Rules also demand for “resettlement”. Resettlement is the process of a prisoner’s reintegration back into the community. But then here again the narrow concept of re-socialisation seems to be applied, because “resettlement” is meant to refer to the period of supervision after the offender has left prison but is still subject to certain statutory obligations – for example, a period of parole. In
110 A. Baratta (2010), Resozialisierung oder soziale Kontrolle? Für ein kritisches Verständnis der sozi alen
“Reintegration”. In: G. Bitz et al. e(Eds.), Grundfragen staatlichen Strafens: Festschrift für Heinz Müller-Dietz zum 70. Geburtstag. München, pp. 1-17.
111 Report on the Implementation of Framework Decisions COM(2014) 57, p. 9.
Re-socialisation and ambulant sanctions
56addition to rehabilitation and resettlement, the European Probation Rules also demand for “aftercare”. By this they mean the process of reintegrating an offender, on a voluntary basis and after final release from detention, back into the community in a constructive, planned and supervised manner.112 This may include some elements of the kind of wider rehabilitation concept as proposed above.
But it is open to debate whether this can be sufficient.
112 Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)1 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the Council of Europe.